Freedom is an essential necessity for teachers. This statement encapsulates two notions – that of the reality in the classroom (the “is”) and the ideal situation (the “ought”). The first observation is that teacher autonomy is inevitable. It is a fact: freedom is a given, and no administrator can deny teachers of it. The second argument is that this freedom is a normative imperative. Under this approach, freedom must be a prerequisite for education: teacher autonomy is appropriate and worthwhile and must be preserved and expanded. Granted, at first glance the first argument seems to make the second redundant: if freedom exists, why do we need to ensure it? I suggest an answer to this question with the help pf two thinkers.

 Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) characterizes human existence : the individual has absolute freedom, by the mere fact of being a sentient subject. In addition, he recommends that we all respect our own and others’ freedom, and  calls for recognizing freedom as an imperative value (2007/1946). American professor of education Joseph Schwab (1909-1988) argues that teachers enjoy freedom of action, derived from the practical nature teaching. He also recommends that teachers be given autonomy in their work and be involved in curricular decision making (1969, 1971, 1973 1983). Thus, the duality presented above – of freedom as a given fact and as a value to strive towards – emerges in the works of both scholars.

 I attempt to resolve the tension arising from this duality. Additionally, I suggest that Sartre and Schwab’s approaches are mutually inspirational, so that reading them together may offer complement aspects lacking in each. In the comparative analysis I inquire two conceptions of freedom: as destiny, and as an imperative value.

Sartre bases the notion of freedom as destiny on atheistic premises. In the absence of a Creator who designs human essence, individuals remain indeterminate. Their only definition is that of being free. Accordingly, individuals are responsible for their actions and their being, and for the general nature of humanity, created by the sum of individual choices. Schwab's claim that teachers’ freedom is inevitable is derived from the very nature of their work as “practical art” (1983). The gap between every theory and the concrete teaching act turns teaching into activity that requires constant creativity, which cannot be subject to general rules.

Following the concept that to be human is to be free, Sartre posits liberty as a value and proposes that we respect our own and others’ freedom. In socio-political terms, realizing the freedom of everyone depends on the degree of freedom we relegate to others. The recognition of freedom and responsibility is referred to as “authenticity,” leading to respecting one’s own freedom and that of others. However, many experience anxiety from facing the truth, choose self-denial and compromise their own and others’ freedom. Apart from individuals’ self-denial, we also encounter the denial of freedom as a social and political phenomenon.

Schwab's discussion about the recognition of freedom and responsibility and their conscious realization by the teacher (1971) corresponds with Sartre’s authentic condition. As opposed to that, when teachers are not involved in deciding on these instructions, an inner tension is created between the necessity to make practical and concrete decisions, and the enforcement of external general regulations(1983). Indeed, Schwab too moves form claiming that teachers are free to calling for greater autonomy in the teachers’ work, and for more significant involvement on their part in curricular decision making

Based on these analogical moves I will suggest a strengthened justification for the need to protect and enlarge teacher's autonomy in class.

This is a theoretical essay in philosophy of education. It presents a reading of two thinkers, and a synthesis between their contributions. Sartre's legacy of the human condition of freedom and responsibility is presented here mainly with reference to the lecture "Existentialism is Humanism" (2007/1946) and to Sartre's discussion about writer's responsibility (1949/1947). Schwab's description of the nature of teaching is based mainly on the quartet of articles "The Practical" (1969, 1971, 1973, 1983), and with contributions from additional writings (1959, 1987). Schwab's contribution to the field of curriculum and to the conceptualization of teacher's work as practical art is presented also with reference to his interpreters: Tyler (1984), Roby (2008), Westbury (2005) and Ben-Peretz & Craig (2018). The final part of the paper presents an original part by the author, suggesting practical educational implications of the philosophical insight discussed.

Reading the two Philosophers together leads to their mutual contribution: Sartre’s conceptualization provides Schwab’s observations with existential universal depth, whereas Schwab’s discussion of teachers provides Sartre’s doctrine with revalidation and suggestions for concrete implementation. Concerning 'freedom as destiny', The integration of Sartre’s and Schwab’s insights provides two key insights. First, the teacher is a particular case of the human individual: the teacher is free and responsible in the classroom, just as every individual is free and responsible in life. Second, the teacher’s burden of free choice is more intense and extreme, as the complexity, immediacy and consequences of the teacher’s choices are multiplied exponentially given the immediate nature of the classroom drama. Integrating their discussions of freedom as a value leads to additional insights. Sartr'es concept of self-denial provide a solution for the tension between the descriptive (“man is free”) and the prescriptive (“freedom must be respected”). Although it is a fact that individuals are free, the fulfilment of freedom is partial. Sartre prefers authenticity, but due to his post-Neitchean philosophy he cannot give it an objective status of a categorial imperative. Turning to Schwab, we identify the tension teachers experience with the self-denial Sartre described; only this self-denial is forced upon teachers mainly by their workplace conditions. we see that he positions teacher autonomy as a value and a challenge for the teachers, and for the decision-making bodies, just as Sartre positioned individual freedom as a challenge for individuals, and for societies. This position implies the need for concrete changes in educational policy to expand the freedom of choice offered to teachers. Here we see how Schwab's pragmatistic approach helps to practically justify preferences that Sartre was only able to recommend. Finally, combining Sartre’s and Schwab’s ideas provides justification for teachers’ autonomy, and refines the meaning of teachers' agency

•Ben-Peretz, M., & Craig, C. J. (2018). Intergenerational impact of a curriculum enigma: The scholarly legacy of Joseph J. Schwab. Educational Studies, 44(4), 421-448. •Golomb, Y. (1988). Epilogue. In J. P. Sartre, Existentialism is a humanism (pp. 53-72). Mifras (Hebrew). •Roby, T. W. (2008). How Joe Schwab thinks: A review of the practical 1 after 40 years. Journal of Curriculum theorizing, 24(1), 85-89. •Sartre, J. P. (1949/1947). What is Literature? (B. Frechtman, Trans.) Philosophical Library. •Sartre, J. P. (2007/1946). Existentialism is a humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.), Yale University Press. •Schwab, J. J. (1959). The" impossible" role of the teacher in progressive education. The School Review, 67(2), 139-159. •Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78(1), 1–23. •Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical 2: Arts of eclectic. School Review, 79(4), 493-542. •Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81(4), 501-522. •Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239-265. •Schwab, J. J. (1987). A reply to Charles Wegener. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(2), 229–233. •Tyler, R. (1984). Personal reflections on The Practical 4. Curriculum Inquiry 14(1), 97–102. •Westbury, I. (2005). Reconsidering Schwab's ‘Practicals’: A response to Peter Hlebowitsh’s ‘Generational ideas in curriculum: A historical triangulation’. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1), 89–101.